TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arawala (1953 (3) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), we hold that the jurisdiction assumed u/s 263 of the Act is erroneous on the ground that the order of the AO has merged with the order of the CIT (A) and the CIT has no jurisdiction to revise u/s 263 of the Act. - ITA No. 1098/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2015 - P. M. Jagtap (Accountant Member) And Asha Vijayaraghavan (Judicial Member) For the Petitioner : Shri G. V. N. Hari, CA For the Respondent : Shri D. Sudhakar Rao, CIT(DR) ORDER Asha Vijayaraghavan (Judicial Member) This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT-III Hyderabad dated 20.03.2014 passed for A.Y 2009-10. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company M/s. Spandana Sphoorty Financials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the amount of processing fee while making the disallowance u/s 14A has rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 2. 1. Notice u/s 263 dated 10.01.2013 was issued and served on the assessee asking to show cause why the assessment completed on 26.12.2011 u/s 143(3) should not be revised under the provisions of section 263 . 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us and has filed the following grounds: 1 The order of the ld CIT is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts. 2. The ld CIT is not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in as much as the assessment order dt. 30.12.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) and the CIT has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of section 263 on the very same issue. Reliance is placed on the following decision by us. The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Muncherji Co. (167 ITR 671) held as follows: The principle underlying section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, corresponding to section 33B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1992 is that it is only the order of the Income Tax Officer which can be revised by the Commissioner. Once the order of assessment is confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or any order with regard to the assessment has been made by him, that becomes a final order of assessment and the only right the Department has is the right of appeal to the Appellate Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33B was enacted the position in law was that if the assessee did not appeal against the order of the assessment, that order became final and conclusive. If the assessee appealed against the order of the ITO the widest jurisdiction was given to the AAC in appeal. He had the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; he had the power to direct the ITO to make a fresh assessment and the only limitation on the exercise of jurisdiction was that if he wanted to enhance the assessment he must give the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard against enhancement. It was concluded that the Commissioner completely went out of the picture once the AAC passed orders in appeal from the decision of the Income Tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
